A call to would-be 4E publishers (if it wasn’t for the GSL).

[Angellis_ater]

BTW I just realized that Earthdawn provides copyright-based inspiration for a lot of what is in 4E. Or, I read about it - but it makes sense: http://xomec.livejournal.com/160677.html and http://xomec.livejournal.com/182947.html - read it and smile

 

[Flash_Plasma]

I tend to be a very wordy person, I'm good with vocabulary, so I offer to help out whenever possible with renaming, however you should probably take it one step at a time. In other words, lets say you want to change the name of Dragonborn to Dragonfolk.

If you do that, focus on RACES first, ignoring other terms until later, or it will just be a jumble of confusing renamings. Also remember that you may need to rename racial abilities, and ESPECIALLY change the fluff or it's still the same thing, at least that's the way I see it. I actually wanted to do something like this myself, though with more homebrew rules. I was going to change the races, throw ability damage back in (to a lesser extent).

Here are a few of my ideas

CLASS

Fighter = Armsmaster
Rogue = Thief
Warlord = Commander
Paladin = Crusader / Knight
Cleric = Priest / Mystic
Wizard = Mage / Magus
Warlock = Sorcerer / Witch
Ranger = Hunter / Huntsman

 

[FormerlyDickensC]

BTW I just realized that Earthdawn provides copyright-based inspiration for a lot of what is in 4E. Or, I read about it - but it makes sense: http://xomec.livejournal.com/160677.html and http://xomec.livejournal.com/182947.html - read it and smile

Wow, 15 years old! That provides a great buttress for this project.

And I saw the new ENWorld Wiki...maybe one of the folks working on the material here would want to use that to slap his work out to the world, tho I'm sure Morrus et al. might find fault with such even though its well within the intentions of the site as a whole. (a place to share ideas and develop gaming).

 

[FormerlyDickensC]

...and ESPECIALLY change the fluff

I would argue that there should be no fluff at all. Iow, just focus on the system and rules. I think having any kind of fluff is counter-productive at this point and contrary to the goals.

 

[Angellis_ater]

I would argue that there should be no fluff at all. Iow, just focus on the system and rules. I think having any kind of fluff is counter-productive at this point and contrary to the goals.

Absolutely, it should be as fluff-free as possible - both for potential gamers and for the purpose of making an "4E OGL" derivate.

 

[Ruis]

I tend to be a very wordy person, I'm good with vocabulary, so I offer to help out whenever possible with renaming, however you should probably take it one step at a time. In other words, lets say you want to change the name of Dragonborn to Dragonfolk.

If you do that, focus on RACES first, ignoring other terms until later, or it will just be a jumble of confusing renamings. Also remember that you may need to rename racial abilities, and ESPECIALLY change the fluff or it's still the same thing, at least that's the way I see it. I actually wanted to do something like this myself, though with more homebrew rules. I was going to change the races, throw ability damage back in (to a lesser extent).

Here are a few of my ideas

CLASS

Fighter = Armsmaster
Rogue = Thief
Warlord = Commander
Paladin = Crusader / Knight
Cleric = Priest / Mystic
Wizard = Mage / Magus
Warlock = Sorcerer / Witch
Ranger = Hunter / Huntsman

Hay, thats pretty cool. although many are from the srd, and thus 4e is a derivative of them, so i don't see why the names should change, unless you want to make a new setting or something using the 4e ogl, which i definatly approve of.

You have given me pause though. Commander or Knight? I like knight because i see knights like Joan of arch or ones that spend years and years in school learning about tactics. However knight is rather specific and does not cover well actual warlords.

If you do that, focus on RACES first, ignoring other terms until later, or it will just be a jumble of confusing renaming.

could you go more in depth here. I don't think i fully understand

The enworld blog would be a good place to put this if its ok with enworld

 

[Flynn]

Fantasy Concepts was mentioned several times in the above posts. Here are the answers to the questions I remember being asked;

1. FC uses Swift Actions, which are mechanically the same as Minor Actions, and which are OGC from the psionics section of the SRD.

2. FC has a Recover action similar to the Second Wind action, but it reduces a penalty level. It also has a rule which allows a character to expend an Action Point to heal damage (1d6 plus character level). It would not be a stretch of the imagination to take the healing game mechanic and apply it to the Recover action, or to make the Recover action take a standard action, especially if the game in question does not use the Penalty Level mechanic.

Good Luck,
Flynn

 

[Flash_Plasma]

could you go more in depth here. I don't think i fully understand

Would you mix combat rules in with equipment rules? race rules with skill rules? probably not, it makes things messy. Everything has it's proper place, and when you're altering something as large as the 4e ruleset, it needs to be in the right place. Let's say you come up with a few terms for combat rules that you really like, but you start working on races or classes or skills.

For the sake of argument, let's say you think up a few more terms while working on races or classes or skills, this time for equipment. When you go back after working on the others, you might not remember what all the terms you liked were, or it might get mixed into everything else you either wrote down or posted, and now you need to sift through the whole mess to find them.

It's best to do work on a single subject at a time, so you don't get mixed up. If you get an idea for a term under another subject, write it down and keep it separate from your current subject, and keep going on your previous work, don't change subjects until one is finished. If you get stuck, then it would be a good time to move on and pick it up later.

What is being undertaken here is a big project, probably bigger that it seems, some preplanning can go a long way to help you. Outline what you want to tackle first, second, third etc. and stick to that outline.

hope that helps

 

[Ruis]

(helpfull advice)

ah i see, you mean my methodology. Its good advice. thanks. I was all over the place, but i thought about what needs done first, and that would be making 3.5 compatible with chapter 9

I'm also taking hints from d20srd.com as that website was what i loved about 3.5

 

[Angellis_ater]

Flynn, thanks a bunch for sharing that information - while I haven't gotten Fantasy Concepts yet, it is on my "to get list" and for good reasons too.